This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.

Sorry to have to tell you, and I know this may sound shocking, but the fact is you are actually not Catholic, you have joined the abominable vatican 2 sect, the true Church of Christ has not had a real pope since 1958, please inform yourself here and save your soul. start with the section on the invalid mass.http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

LOLOLOL ok so the Sedes want me at least HAHAHA

This is when you should really reflect deeply on some of Marx's best thought.

Sorry to have to tell you, and I know this may sound shocking, but the fact is you are actually not Catholic, you have joined the abominable vatican 2 sect, the true Church of Christ has not had a real pope since 1958, please inform yourself here and save your soul. start with the section on the invalid mass.http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

Who was it who decided that Pope Francis is not a "real pope"? Who chose the Dimond brothers to make these decisions?

I hope so. I got easily irritated by people who think they can speak on behalf of some group I belong to. You can call it my pet issue.

So is there an official document I can review on the steps necessary to be allowed to speak? Or do you just have to make it through the hazing? I figured I'd ask you since you seem to be the designated person.

People disagreeing ain't stopping people from speaking.

Arachne will likely explain to you something about how communities work in some wistful manner and liken this to something like a community.

It ain't.

If you abide by the forum rules, which are rather liberal for what this place actually is, an online forum for Orthodox and about Orthodoxy, and not what it ain't, a community, you will be allowed to speak all you want.

See that number next to my avatar.

That's lotsa words. I've been given a very slight reprimand twice. And I am a jerk.

Good to see you inquiring in the Orthodox faith Peter J, hope all is well.

I miss the period in which he was a sedevacantist.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Orthonorm, I'd appreciate if you'd consider editing out the quote of my post as I deleted it due to trying to maintain charity. Regardless, I won't be commenting on it again if it stays.

I'm really not interested in engaging in one upmanship by witticisms, it's already a weakness of mine so I don't need to be hanging out places where it's a sport and tempt myself.

I think you will find that certain people become sarcastic and engage "in one upmanship" during Great Lent. Some people on this board hide their password so that they will not be tempted to return until after Pascha.

« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 12:24:31 AM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Orthonorm, I'd appreciate if you'd consider editing out the quote of my post as I deleted it due to trying to maintain charity. Regardless, I won't be commenting on it again if it stays.

I'm really not interested in engaging in one upmanship by witticisms, it's already a weakness of mine so I don't need to be hanging out places where it's a sport and tempt myself.

I think you will find that certain people become sarcastic and engage "in one upmanship" during Great Lent. Some people on this board hide their password so that they will not be tempted to return until after Pascha.

I'm positive that our priests do not contact the priests of Roman Catholic candidates (the Greeks are happy to snatch up converts as quickly as possible here). Perhaps Maria hails from an alternate dimension or something.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

I've been torn between the CC and OC for quite awhile now. I'm a convert to the CC, but I felt a strong pull to the OC even before becoming Catholic. Since then, I've struggled to make sense of it all.

I do not understand the Catholic veneration of the papal office. I hear lots of comments about how regardless of what he may have said or done or taught as Bishop that he is Pope now and they support him no matter what, because he is reserved from teaching false doctrine or he will no longer be Pope. People actually believe that God will strike him down before he would have the opportunity to promulgate something false.

I'm now starting to see the problem with declaring something ( a council) or someone ( the Pope) infallible at the outset instead of after the fact when the orthodoxy of what is declared can be confirmed or rejected.

Universal jurisdiction seems to be naturally tied to papal infallibility and creates the situation where submission to Rome is more important than orthodox belief. Hence we have a bunch of people that are considered Catholic but don't agree with Catholic teaching on many issues. it's no longer about orthodox belief it's all about being in communion with the Pope. Because once a Catholic always a Catholic.

None of this makes any sense to me and now I realize I never should have become Catholic in the first place.

Melesine,

I think you should become Orthodox--I think everyone should. But you especially. You question the essence of Roman Catholicism--the papal office. As long as this continues, you will not be happy as a RC. This is the fundamental reason why I didn't become RC.

I do not know if you will be happy as an Orthodox Christian, but I pray you become one. Forget about whether your existing RC priest approves or not. I cannot fathom why the opinion of a heterodox cleric should have any baring on your decision to become part of Christ's Bride, the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Choy, in a recent thread, I alluded to the proclamations and grand guidance you have given. I hate it when catechumen is used derisively, but I have the same problem when it loses any meaning associated with someone receiving instruction. We're allI am very pleased that you are becoming Orthodox and appreciate your zeal, but Michal's advice seems quite solid. Take this time to absorb the faith. There will be plenty of time for the other stuff. And don't take this as chastisement, just friendly advice.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

I've been torn between the CC and OC for quite awhile now. I'm a convert to the CC, but I felt a strong pull to the OC even before becoming Catholic. Since then, I've struggled to make sense of it all.

I do not understand the Catholic veneration of the papal office. I hear lots of comments about how regardless of what he may have said or done or taught as Bishop that he is Pope now and they support him no matter what, because he is reserved from teaching false doctrine or he will no longer be Pope. People actually believe that God will strike him down before he would have the opportunity to promulgate something false.

I'm now starting to see the problem with declaring something ( a council) or someone ( the Pope) infallible at the outset instead of after the fact when the orthodoxy of what is declared can be confirmed or rejected.

Universal jurisdiction seems to be naturally tied to papal infallibility and creates the situation where submission to Rome is more important than orthodox belief. Hence we have a bunch of people that are considered Catholic but don't agree with Catholic teaching on many issues. it's no longer about orthodox belief it's all about being in communion with the Pope. Because once a Catholic always a Catholic.

None of this makes any sense to me and now I realize I never should have become Catholic in the first place.

Melesine,

I think you should become Orthodox--I think everyone should. But you especially. You question the essence of Roman Catholicism--the papal office.

So do I. (Not long ago I would have added "and so does Choy", but that example doesn't seem very helpful to my point, now that he's planning on become Orthodox. )

I've been torn between the CC and OC for quite awhile now. I'm a convert to the CC, but I felt a strong pull to the OC even before becoming Catholic. Since then, I've struggled to make sense of it all.

I do not understand the Catholic veneration of the papal office. I hear lots of comments about how regardless of what he may have said or done or taught as Bishop that he is Pope now and they support him no matter what, because he is reserved from teaching false doctrine or he will no longer be Pope. People actually believe that God will strike him down before he would have the opportunity to promulgate something false.

I'm now starting to see the problem with declaring something ( a council) or someone ( the Pope) infallible at the outset instead of after the fact when the orthodoxy of what is declared can be confirmed or rejected.

Universal jurisdiction seems to be naturally tied to papal infallibility and creates the situation where submission to Rome is more important than orthodox belief. Hence we have a bunch of people that are considered Catholic but don't agree with Catholic teaching on many issues. it's no longer about orthodox belief it's all about being in communion with the Pope. Because once a Catholic always a Catholic.

None of this makes any sense to me and now I realize I never should have become Catholic in the first place.

Melesine,

I think you should become Orthodox--I think everyone should. But you especially. You question the essence of Roman Catholicism--the papal office.

So do I. (Not long ago I would have added "and so does Choy", but that example doesn't seem very helpful to my point, now that he's planning on become Orthodox. )

So did I. When Papal infallibility and Papal supremacy fell, then I decided that I could no longer receive communion in the Roman Catholic or Byzantine Catholic Church. Although my Catholic priest told me that I could receive communion as long as I was struggling to be a Catholic under the Pope, I no longer believed in the Papacy. To continue to receive communion after that point would be hypocritical.

Within six months my family and I were received into the Greek Orthodox Church by Chrismation.

« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 02:14:58 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.

Sorry to have to tell you, and I know this may sound shocking, but the fact is you are actually not Catholic, you have joined the abominable vatican 2 sect, the true Church of Christ has not had a real pope since 1958, please inform yourself here and save your soul. start with the section on the invalid mass.http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

LOLOLOL ok so the Sedes want me at least HAHAHA

This is when you should really reflect deeply on some of Marx's best thought.

This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.

Sorry to have to tell you, and I know this may sound shocking, but the fact is you are actually not Catholic, you have joined the abominable vatican 2 sect, the true Church of Christ has not had a real pope since 1958, please inform yourself here and save your soul. start with the section on the invalid mass.http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

LOLOLOL ok so the Sedes want me at least HAHAHA

This is when you should really reflect deeply on some of Marx's best thought.

I don't think people take papal infallibility so seriously nowadays. The world has emancipated ever since the introduction of this false idea (thus, not orthodox) of the infallibility of one person who is supposed to replace the role of Christ who actively leads the Church (the orthodox belief). So, over time people have become more aware that it is not normal to think that we are infallible and the popes are more in tune with reality, more flexible. The last pope even admitted that he was no longer fitted for the job -- in other words, he admitted he was very much fallible which in itself is an act of humility and one that can save the world.

Please don't take the advice of a fresh-off-the-streets catechumen to heart, but this is what I would do:

First, ask yourself: "Do I believe that the Holy Orthodox Church is the Church that Christ founded?" Then, ask yourself: "If I'm wrong, do I believe I'm going to hell?"

I struggled briefly between the two churches. I ultimately came to accept that I could never have epistemological certainty with regards to where I should be. Once that sunk in, I looked to the Church that I believed offered the fullest expression of Faith, and that Church was the Holy Orthodox Church. Then, I began (I say "began" because, of course, I still struggle) to place my life in God's hands.

I don't believe that people go to hell because they don't belong to the right Church. I believe that God looks into the inner heart of each of his servants and judges them there. That said, I believe that the Holy Orthodox Church offers us the clearest way to salvation, without errors that might cause some to stumble (and I believe that the fillioque and papal infallibility are such errors).

Our Lord made St. Peter the first pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave him supreme authority in the universal Church of Christ.

John 21:15‐17‐“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he aid to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

And with the supreme authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ conferred upon St. Peter (and his successors, the popes) comes what is called Papal Infallibility. Papal Infallibility is inseparable from Papal Supremacy – there was no point for Christ to make St. Peter the head of His Church (as Christ clearly did) if St. Peter or his successors, the popes, could err when exercising that supreme authority to teach on a point of Faith. The supreme authority must be unfailing on binding matters of Faith and morals or else it is no true authority from Christ at all.

Papal Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err at all and it does not mean that a pope cannot lose his soul and be damned in Hell for grave sin. It means that the successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church) cannot err when authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.

Luke 22:31‐32‐ “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter (singular), that his faith fail not. Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors (the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra: “SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR...”10

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra: “... the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not ...’”11

And this truth has been held since the earliest times in the Catholic Church.

Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495: “Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).”12

11 The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.” Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith. Though this truth was believed since the beginning of the Church, it was specifically defined as a dogma at the First Vatican Council in 1870.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: “...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”13

But how does one know when a pope is exercising his unfailing Faith to infallibly teach from the Chair of St. Peter? The answer is that we know from the language that the pope uses or the manner in which the pope teaches. Vatican I defined two requirements which must be fulfilled: 1) when the pope is carrying out his duty as pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; 2) when he explains a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. A pope can fulfill both of these requirements in just one line, by anathematizing a false opinion (such as many dogmatic councils) or by saying “By our apostolic authority we declare...” or by saying “We believe, profess, and teach” or by using words of similar importance and meaning, which indicate that the pope is teaching the whole Church on Faith in a definitive and binding fashion.

So, when a pope teaches from the Chair of Peter in the manner stipulated above he cannot be wrong. If he could be wrong, then the Church of Christ could be officially led into error, and Christ’s promise to St. Peter and His Church would fail (which is impossible). That which is taught from the Chair of Peter by the popes of the Catholic Church is the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself. To reject that which is taught by the popes from the Chair of Peter is simply to despise Jesus Christ Himself.

Luke 10:16‐ “He that heareth you, heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me...”

Matthew 18:17 ‐“And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896: 12“... Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium... If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”14

I hope so. I got easily irritated by people who think they can speak on behalf of some group I belong to. You can call it my pet issue.

So is there an official document I can review on the steps necessary to be allowed to speak? Or do you just have to make it through the hazing? I figured I'd ask you since you seem to be the designated person.

To speak for me? Sorry, but I won't allow you that. I can speak for myself.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Our Lord made St. Peter the first pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave him supreme authority in the universal Church of Christ.

John 21:15‐17‐“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he aid to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

And with the supreme authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ conferred upon St. Peter (and his successors, the popes) comes what is called Papal Infallibility. Papal Infallibility is inseparable from Papal Supremacy – there was no point for Christ to make St. Peter the head of His Church (as Christ clearly did) if St. Peter or his successors, the popes, could err when exercising that supreme authority to teach on a point of Faith. The supreme authority must be unfailing on binding matters of Faith and morals or else it is no true authority from Christ at all.

Papal Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err at all and it does not mean that a pope cannot lose his soul and be damned in Hell for grave sin. It means that the successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church) cannot err when authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.

Luke 22:31‐32‐ “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter (singular), that his faith fail not. Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors (the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra: “SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR...”10

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra: “... the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not ...’”11

And this truth has been held since the earliest times in the Catholic Church.

Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495: “Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).”12

11 The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.” Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith. Though this truth was believed since the beginning of the Church, it was specifically defined as a dogma at the First Vatican Council in 1870.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: “...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”13

But how does one know when a pope is exercising his unfailing Faith to infallibly teach from the Chair of St. Peter? The answer is that we know from the language that the pope uses or the manner in which the pope teaches. Vatican I defined two requirements which must be fulfilled: 1) when the pope is carrying out his duty as pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; 2) when he explains a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. A pope can fulfill both of these requirements in just one line, by anathematizing a false opinion (such as many dogmatic councils) or by saying “By our apostolic authority we declare...” or by saying “We believe, profess, and teach” or by using words of similar importance and meaning, which indicate that the pope is teaching the whole Church on Faith in a definitive and binding fashion.

So, when a pope teaches from the Chair of Peter in the manner stipulated above he cannot be wrong. If he could be wrong, then the Church of Christ could be officially led into error, and Christ’s promise to St. Peter and His Church would fail (which is impossible). That which is taught from the Chair of Peter by the popes of the Catholic Church is the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself. To reject that which is taught by the popes from the Chair of Peter is simply to despise Jesus Christ Himself.

Luke 10:16‐ “He that heareth you, heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me...”

Matthew 18:17 ‐“And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896: 12“... Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium... If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”14

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility?

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility?

Good question. Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden say that Francis is the Pope. The Dimond brothers say Francis is not the Pope. Why should we believe the Dimond brothers over Nancy Pelosi?

Our Lord made St. Peter the first pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave him supreme authority in the universal Church of Christ.

John 21:15‐17‐“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he aid to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

And with the supreme authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ conferred upon St. Peter (and his successors, the popes) comes what is called Papal Infallibility. Papal Infallibility is inseparable from Papal Supremacy – there was no point for Christ to make St. Peter the head of His Church (as Christ clearly did) if St. Peter or his successors, the popes, could err when exercising that supreme authority to teach on a point of Faith. The supreme authority must be unfailing on binding matters of Faith and morals or else it is no true authority from Christ at all.

Papal Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err at all and it does not mean that a pope cannot lose his soul and be damned in Hell for grave sin. It means that the successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church) cannot err when authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.

Luke 22:31‐32‐ “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter (singular), that his faith fail not. Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors (the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra: “SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR...”10

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra: “... the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not ...’”11

And this truth has been held since the earliest times in the Catholic Church.

Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495: “Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).”12

11 The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.” Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith. Though this truth was believed since the beginning of the Church, it was specifically defined as a dogma at the First Vatican Council in 1870.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: “...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”13

But how does one know when a pope is exercising his unfailing Faith to infallibly teach from the Chair of St. Peter? The answer is that we know from the language that the pope uses or the manner in which the pope teaches. Vatican I defined two requirements which must be fulfilled: 1) when the pope is carrying out his duty as pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; 2) when he explains a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. A pope can fulfill both of these requirements in just one line, by anathematizing a false opinion (such as many dogmatic councils) or by saying “By our apostolic authority we declare...” or by saying “We believe, profess, and teach” or by using words of similar importance and meaning, which indicate that the pope is teaching the whole Church on Faith in a definitive and binding fashion.

So, when a pope teaches from the Chair of Peter in the manner stipulated above he cannot be wrong. If he could be wrong, then the Church of Christ could be officially led into error, and Christ’s promise to St. Peter and His Church would fail (which is impossible). That which is taught from the Chair of Peter by the popes of the Catholic Church is the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself. To reject that which is taught by the popes from the Chair of Peter is simply to despise Jesus Christ Himself.

Luke 10:16‐ “He that heareth you, heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me...”

Matthew 18:17 ‐“And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896: 12“... Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium... If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”14

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility?

why God would allow it to happen is debateable, what is not debateable is that it has happened, so why woul I follow a pope who's not catholic and in fact a heretic?Pope Leo XIII’s longerPrayer to St. Michaelalso fits perfectly with Our Lady of La Salette’s famous appearance and prediction in 1846: “Rome will lose the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist...the Church will be in eclipse.” Pope Leo’s words suggest that Antichrist himself, or at Pope Leo XIII’s prophecy about the future apostasy in Romeleast the forces of Antichrist, would set up their seat in Rome:“In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter... they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety.

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility?

Good question. Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden say that Francis is the Pope. The Dimond brothers say Francis is not the Pope. Why should we believe the Dimond brothers over Nancy Pelosi?

please tell me you're joking about Pelosi being catholic, you shouldn't think Francis is not a pope because the Dimond brothers said so, Francis is not a true pope because he goes against the magisterium, against catholic teacingexample 1 http://www.israelunseen.com/new-pope-jorge-bergoglio-celebrated-hannukah-as-cardinal-of-buenos-aires/#.Ucan you not see by this simple example why he's not catholic?St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.”

So, when John Paul II and now Benedict XVI (with high-ranking members of the Vatican II sect) attend the mosque, the Buddhist Temple, the Lutheran temple and the synagogue they are manifesting their apostasy by their deed. They are manifesting by their deed that they accept these false religions, and that these people don’t need to become Catholic for salvation. When Benedict XVI entered the synagogue and took active part in a Jewish worship service on August 19, 2005, he was manifesting his apostasy (his acceptance of the false Jewish religion) by his deed. That is why St. Thomas Aquinas taught that if anyone were to worship at the tomb of Mohammed he would be an apostate. Such an action alone would show that he does not have the Catholic Faith, and that he accepts the false Islamic religion.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

Description: Catholic Saints

John Paul II kissing the Koran, May 14, 1999

John Paul II did the equivalent of worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet when he kissed the blasphemous Koran, when he praised Islam and its leaders countless times, and when he attended the mosque. Just imagine what the Catholic saints would say about the Vatican II sect and John Paul II? They would utterly denounce John Paul II and the Vatican II sect as completely apostate just for their teaching and actions with regard to the false religion of Islam:

St. Francis Xavier, May, 1546: “The evil [of Islam] was introduced by some Mahometan caicizes (ministers of religion), who came from Mecca in Arabia, where the accursed body of Mahomet is honored with great superstition.”

St. Francis of Assisi (+ c. 1210): [To the Muslims] “We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us.”

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility?

Good question. Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden say that Francis is the Pope. The Dimond brothers say Francis is not the Pope. Why should we believe the Dimond brothers over Nancy Pelosi?

please tell me you're joking about Pelosi being catholic, you shouldn't think Francis is not a pope because the Dimond brothers said so, Francis is not a true pope because he goes against the magisterium, against catholic teacing

According to you, who is now the magisterium? If you saw an apparition that said you were wrong about anything you posted on this board, how would you react?

John Paul II did the equivalent of worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet when he kissed the blasphemous Koran, when he praised Islam and its leaders countless times, and when he attended the mosque. Just imagine what the Catholic saints would say about the Vatican II sect and John Paul II? They would utterly denounce John Paul II and the Vatican II sect as completely apostate just for their teaching and actions with regard to the false religion of Islam:

Pope Francis, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, visited the mosque and synagogue.

I just do not get how Catholics can be sedevacantists and still believe in the Papacy.

« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 09:44:53 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility?

Good question. Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden say that Francis is the Pope. The Dimond brothers say Francis is not the Pope. Why should we believe the Dimond brothers over Nancy Pelosi?

please tell me you're joking about Pelosi being catholic, you shouldn't think Francis is not a pope because the Dimond brothers said so, Francis is not a true pope because he goes against the magisterium, against catholic teacingexample 1 http://www.israelunseen.com/new-pope-jorge-bergoglio-celebrated-hannukah-as-cardinal-of-buenos-aires/#.Ucan you not see by this simple example why he's not catholic?St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.”

So, when John Paul II and now Benedict XVI (with high-ranking members of the Vatican II sect) attend the mosque, the Buddhist Temple, the Lutheran temple and the synagogue they are manifesting their apostasy by their deed. They are manifesting by their deed that they accept these false religions, and that these people don’t need to become Catholic for salvation. When Benedict XVI entered the synagogue and took active part in a Jewish worship service on August 19, 2005, he was manifesting his apostasy (his acceptance of the false Jewish religion) by his deed. That is why St. Thomas Aquinas taught that if anyone were to worship at the tomb of Mohammed he would be an apostate. Such an action alone would show that he does not have the Catholic Faith, and that he accepts the false Islamic religion.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

Description: Catholic Saints

John Paul II kissing the Koran, May 14, 1999

John Paul II did the equivalent of worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet when he kissed the blasphemous Koran, when he praised Islam and its leaders countless times, and when he attended the mosque. Just imagine what the Catholic saints would say about the Vatican II sect and John Paul II? They would utterly denounce John Paul II and the Vatican II sect as completely apostate just for their teaching and actions with regard to the false religion of Islam:

St. Francis Xavier, May, 1546: “The evil [of Islam] was introduced by some Mahometan caicizes (ministers of religion), who came from Mecca in Arabia, where the accursed body of Mahomet is honored with great superstition.”

St. Francis of Assisi (+ c. 1210): [To the Muslims] “We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us.”

Well that's weird. That would be like if St. Peter, or St. Paul, or St. James or somebody, wrote an infallible book of the bible!

Yes, of course St. Peter is so infallible that he never needed to be corrected by someone like St. Paul

Indeed, that is why the Orthodox Christian Church is conciliar, and not a monarchy with an infallible pope as at the Vatican.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Have you ever studied the history of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church?

Just after the declaration of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility in 1870, canon lawyers at the Vatican started revising the ancient canons to make them comply with the new doctrines concerning the Papacy. The first Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church was published around 1913 just before WWI. One of the first canons to be revised dealt with how a bishop was to be elected. Since the Pope was now supreme, the canon lawyers changed the election and confirmation of a bishop.

In the canon laws established by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, all of which have anathemas attached if they should be changed, it details that when a diocese is vacant due to the death or resignation of a bishop, then the clergy (with laity present) are to meet and select three candidates. Then the senior priest is to appeal to the nearest bishops to seek their approval of one of the three candidates. When three bishops have chosen one candidate (or more), the candidate will be led into the church and consecrated a bishop by those three bishops. Only after the consecration, will the other churches and hierarchs be notified, including the Bishop of Rome. So, until 1913, the Pope of Rome did not have to approve any candidates for the bishopric.

This centralized control at the Vatican took away local control from the laity and the clergy. In addition, with the establishment of this papal monarchy, local government officials were deprived of their choice of candidates for the bishopric.

This change in canon law and the enforcement of it actually helped bring on World War I.

Again, I cannot remember where I read this, but back in 1993 many people in the Melkite Catholic Church were studying these canons when the Newton Diocese in the Melkite Church was vacant. We wanted a return to the ancient canons, but the Vatican made us wait almost three years before we had a new bishop installed. Those were hard times. Finally, there was a bishop who came from the Vatican to interview the laity in our parish, I was one who was selected for an interview. The bishop explained to me that with the doctrine of Papal Supremacy, the election of bishops had definitely changed, and that we had to be patient as the Holy Father would duly select the right candidate.

I do not like centralized control.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility?

Good question. Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden say that Francis is the Pope. The Dimond brothers say Francis is not the Pope. Why should we believe the Dimond brothers over Nancy Pelosi?

please tell me you're joking about Pelosi being catholic, you shouldn't think Francis is not a pope because the Dimond brothers said so, Francis is not a true pope because he goes against the magisterium, against catholic teacing

According to you, who is now the magisterium? If you saw an apparition that said you were wrong about anything you posted on this board, how would you react?

it's already happenedThe False Apparitions at Bayside, NYThe False Apparitions at Medjugorje Any apparition which favors Vatican II or the Vatican II antipopes is proven by that fact to contradict Catholic teaching. It therefore cannot be from God. Magisterium– the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, exercised by a pope when proclaiming a dogma with the authority of the Papacy. Not every pronouncement of a true pope is a teaching of the Magisterium. A pope speaks magisterially when hemeets certain conditions (as defined by Vatican I). Those who are faithful to the Magisterium are those who are faithful towhat all the popes throughout history have dogmatically taught or set forth as what the Catholic Church has always held